Drop Turner Q

[Tom D]

Let's say the round penetrated the target making a long tear as described, starting at the C zone and exiting the back of the target somewhere in the A zone. The only visible grease ring that appears to be a strike is in the C zone.

How is it scored?

Highest zone hit, so Alpha.

On scoring the OP's target: Sarge got it right: Alpha, NPM, NS.

Troy

Troy,

How could there be a NS? Wouldent 4.1.5 prohibit The back as a NS?

4.1.5 Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use

of tape, paint or any other means is prohibited.

Tom

Well, from the original post, I think there was a no-shoot overlapping the shoot target, and I got the impression that he hit both of them. But, on this forum, you sometimes don't get a clear picture.

Here's what the OP said: "When the RO scored it we looked at the target and it had at least a 6" slash that started in the "C" Zone and ended in the "A" zone. I thought that it would be scored an Alpha. But then I looked and there was another 6" slash in a no-shoot that covered the lower 3rd of the target."

If it was hit in the back, then no, it's not a no-shoot, but from the description, it sounds like he hit both of 'em in the front, and punched a hole in them.

Troy

I missed that , sorry.

Tom

[old506]

Well, from the original post, I think there was a no-shoot overlapping the shoot target, and I got the impression that he hit both of them. But, on this forum, you sometimes don't get a clear picture.

Here's what the OP said: "When the RO scored it we looked at the target and it had at least a 6" slash that started in the "C" Zone and ended in the "A" zone. I thought that it would be scored an Alpha. But then I looked and there was another 6" slash in a no-shoot that covered the lower 3rd of the target."

If it was hit in the back, then no, it's not a no-shoot, but from the description, it sounds like he hit both of 'em in the front, and punched a hole in them.

Troy

That is what happened. I hit both of them from the front punching 2 holes, one in the shoot target and one in the no-shoot.

[mactiger]

There ya go. Alpha, NPM, NS.

Troy

[Blueridge]

The same problem happened to me (my hole was about 4" long). An RO with years of experience told me that a hole longer than 2" does not count. I think that his ruling may have been from some old rule, but since I did not have my rule book with me I did not argue.

I always carry my rule book with me now and I recommend that to all.

That is a very old rule. Unfortunately, some ROs never keep up with rulebook changes and make calls which they think are correct but are actually not.

If years have passed since initial certification, especially if there have been multiple rulebook revisions since that time, I recommend that ROs should attend another RO seminar as a refresher. It's amazing how much more is to be learned.

Okay, I am confused. in the January 2008 blue book threre is 9.5.5 which reads:

"Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitors bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visable evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a 'crown' etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter."

This sounds like the rule that it is advised is old and does not exist, but there it seems to be in the most current rulebook that I am aware of.

Please clarify.

This rule could have led to the no penalty mike that the initial poster advised of.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Blueridge

[sperman]

I think its pretty easy to tell the difference in a hole made when the turner was at an angle and a hole made by splatter.

[mactiger]

The same problem happened to me (my hole was about 4" long). An RO with years of experience told me that a hole longer than 2" does not count. I think that his ruling may have been from some old rule, but since I did not have my rule book with me I did not argue.

I always carry my rule book with me now and I recommend that to all.

That is a very old rule. Unfortunately, some ROs never keep up with rulebook changes and make calls which they think are correct but are actually not.

If years have passed since initial certification, especially if there have been multiple rulebook revisions since that time, I recommend that ROs should attend another RO seminar as a refresher. It's amazing how much more is to be learned.

Okay, I am confused. in the January 2008 blue book threre is 9.5.5 which reads:

"Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitors bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visable evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a 'crown' etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter."

This sounds like the rule that it is advised is old and does not exist, but there it seems to be in the most current rulebook that I am aware of.

Please clarify.

This rule could have led to the no penalty mike that the initial poster advised of.

The rule you are referring to covers splatter, or big pieces of jacket, etc., which may impact a target after first impacting a piece of steel or some other hard object used as hard cover. In this case, there was no splatter, simply two long bullet holes in the target caused by shooting it as it turned. As long as the bullet penetrates the target, that is, there is daylight showing through, we know that at least a partial bullet diameter passed through the target, even if it came out the same side, therefore it counts on the highest zone hit. And, while that bullet hole will indeed be longer than the bullet's diameter, it certainly won't be wider, so it's obviously caused by the bullet, not splatter. That's what the old rule referred to and why overlays had those eyebrows on them--to be able to measure two bullet diameters. That rule no longer exists.

In this example the two elongated hits were the A zone, and the no-shoot, causing a score of 1 Alpha, 1 no penalty miss (because there weren't two hits on the scoring target and it disappeared), and one no shoot.

The old rule would have caused this to be scored as a completely missed target, 2 NPM.

I think the reason for the initial score was ignorance of the (new) rules on the part of the person scoring the target, not improper application of the wrong rule.

Troy

[George Jones]

Please clarify.

The "old rule" to which I referred is the one mentioned in Post #20.

In today's rulebook:

- An elongated hit is OK (it was not in 1995)

- A hit must make a hole in the target (9.5.9)

- An enlarged hole in the target must show some evidence of an arc or grease ring to count (9.5.5)

Easy!

[Blueridge]

I understand now.